• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What are property rights? How do they begin?

By allowing people on its piece of Earth, same as any other landlord. .

The state doesn't own anything, property can only be owned by the people.
 
The state doesn't own anything, property can only be owned by the people.

By that logic, a corporation can't own property. States have the same feudal origin as personal property and its combinations. The only difference is that most states have been formally democratized whereas most personal properties and their combinations are still monarchic or oligarchic.
 
By unionizing, teachers support themselves. The social betrayal of students is rather in the sanction of inefficiently distributed property, which results in an equally inefficient distribution of resources among schools, regardless of whether the resources are collected indirectly, in the form property taxes, or directly, in the form of tuition.

I think what you say about funding has some truth in large metropolitan area and not otherwise. I don't have a problem with unionizing. I do have a problem with politicians who back unions at the expense of the education of our children.



By allowing people on its piece of Earth, same as any other landlord.

Your form of government owns everything.



Who fends for oneself? The state fends for the rich by enforcing their property entitlements. If they wanted to fend for themselves, they would return their property to the commons and sell their labor like everyone else--properly, not confused with capital.

I work and earn my my keep. I fend for myself. The state has an obligation by our Constitution to defend our life, our liberty and our property. Rich or poor. Someone being rich or poor has no adverse affect on me by itself.

I see you lean "communist." Are you a communist who has read and follows the writings of Marx and Engels? Is communism to you all of us working in the fields every day and taking to the home that looks like everyone else's the same portion and kind of food as all the other workers?
 
By that logic, a corporation can't own property. States have the same feudal origin as personal property and its combinations. The only difference is that most states have been formally democratized whereas most personal properties and their combinations are still monarchic or oligarchic.

A corporation is a legal construct. If all the people who make up a corporation leave, the only thing left is a pile of useless paper that can make no decisions on its own. A government, similarly, is a legal construct. It exists only so long as the people decide that it exists. When they decide it's gone, it ceases to be.
 
I see you lean "communist." Are you a communist who has read and follows the writings of Marx and Engels? Is communism to you all of us working in the fields every day and taking to the home that looks like everyone else's the same portion and kind of food as all the other workers?

Except for the fields part, that's as good a description of capitalism as you'll get for as many words. And while I'm not an orthodox Marxist, I know enough of him to know that he and Engels advocated the overthrow of precisely that system that turns us (I use "us" cautiously, as your warning of uniform homes brags you're fortunate enough to have a unique one) into interchangeable cogs in an industrial machine--not specifically because it robs us of our individuality, but because it makes us miserable in general. Communists aspire to a kind of diversity that is infinitely more valuable than difference from others, because it is diversity within oneself, or as Marx put it: "to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

A corporation is a legal construct. If all the people who make up a corporation leave, the only thing left is a pile of useless paper that can make no decisions on its own. A government, similarly, is a legal construct. It exists only so long as the people decide that it exists. When they decide it's gone, it ceases to be.

What's your point? Yes, corporations and governments are legal constructs that can own property because they're made up of people capable of making decisions, just like the legal constructs that are private estates.
 
This is a topic that really puzzles me. Living in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles we probably take property rights for granted and give it little thought.

When someone wants your computer, they are forbidden from taking it for their own use no matter how bad they want it. Why is that? Well. It's yours. It belongs to you. It is immoral, unethical, illegal, disappointing and annoying for you to steal it. Why is it yours? The owner of the store gave it to you in exchange for pieces of paper or a credit card or debit card swipe or a promissory not which is a manifestation of your present or future labor which you have traded in exchange for the computer. Who gave the computer to them? Well. They obtain the parts to build the computer through voluntary transactions with their previous owner. That argument works really good until you take it to the point of land. The land is where all natural resources originate. These natural resources are responsible for every single non-living thing in existence. Even the living things can be considered a natural resource. Who owns the property and why? That's easy. The person holding the deed.

This is where it gets tricky. When did the first transaction of real property occur? Who was the first entity to own the land and what was their justification of ownership? It seems like the concept of property rights had to be violated in order to begin the tradition of property rights.

This is where our discussion begins.

Any thoughts?

Property rights are around even in the animal kingdom. Just think of the leader of the pack. No other wolf will touch his portion. There are birds that will not eat food brought home for the young. This went on throughout human history unanalyzed, much as humans traded in markets and forbade theft. As far as I remember economists started analyzing the thing in the 1950 or so.
 
Property rights are around even in the animal kingdom. Just think of the leader of the pack. No other wolf will touch his portion. There are birds that will not eat food brought home for the young. This went on throughout human history unanalyzed, much as humans traded in markets and forbade theft. As far as I remember economists started analyzing the thing in the 1950 or so.

You are confusing "stuff that an individual can prevent others from taking" with "stuff that a govt will protect from being taken by others"
 
You are confusing "stuff that an individual can prevent others from taking" with "stuff that a govt will protect from being taken by others"

Well, no. Property rights encompass both. It is only that we have to enforce some rights ourselves.
 
Well, no. Property rights encompass both. It is only that we have to enforce some rights ourselves.

Nope, a dog that can keep other dogs from its' bone does not own the bone.

If you believe otherwise, please show me the law which says the dog owns the bone.
 
Nope, a dog that can keep other dogs from its' bone does not own the bone.

If you believe otherwise, please show me the law which says the dog owns the bone.

I was interpreting the economic essence of the matter. The legalism comes much later.
 
I was interpreting the economic essence of the matter. The legalism comes much later.

I am unable to make sense of that. What is the "economic essence" of giving rights to dogs and other animals and how can rights not be involved with "legalisms"?
 
I am unable to make sense of that. What is the "economic essence" of giving rights to dogs and other animals and how can rights not be involved with "legalisms"?

Economics can easily be applied to the animal realm. Why is that confusing`?
 
You are not talking about just economics. You are arguing about rights, something animals do not have

The essence of property rights is economic. This must be separated from the secondary phenomenon of the legalisms in order to understand why they work, why one law works better and why a very similar structure of rights founders. This is also applicable to constitutional structures or systems of lawlessness or arbitrary application of possession by the way.
 
No, it's not.

How can it be otherwise? When one makes laws and rights they either work well or badly. When we make a law, we want it to work well, which it is, depends on the underlying economics. You have to get them right or the law backfires.

Our constitution got the rights right and that has helped the country be as successful as it has been.
 
How can it be otherwise? When one makes laws and rights they either work well or badly. When we make a law, we want it to work well, which it is, depends on the underlying economics. You have to get them right or the law backfires.

Nonsense. Economics is not the only cosideration for whether a law works or not.

Boiling babies down to make soap might make economic sense, but it would still be reprehensible. Rights are not determined by economics
 
Our constitution got the rights right and that has helped the country be as successful as it has been.

It didn't hurt that you sat around for two years while the Fascists exhausted themselves decimating your competitors, either.
 
Nonsense. Economics is not the only cosideration for whether a law works or not.

Boiling babies down to make soap might make economic sense, but it would still be reprehensible. Rights are not determined by economics

No, not all laws will make economic sense. But you will find that boiling babies down for soap does not usually make economic sense, if you analyse it. The same is true for most if not all fundamental rights. A society would be dysfunctional otherwise.
 
It didn't hurt that you sat around for two years while the Fascists exhausted themselves decimating your competitors, either.

I am sorry to say that that twist of mind's meaning eludes me.
 
This is a topic that really puzzles me. Living in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian principles we probably take property rights for granted and give it little thought.

When someone wants your computer, they are forbidden from taking it for their own use no matter how bad they want it. Why is that? Well. It's yours. It belongs to you. It is immoral, unethical, illegal, disappointing and annoying for you to steal it. Why is it yours? The owner of the store gave it to you in exchange for pieces of paper or a credit card or debit card swipe or a promissory not which is a manifestation of your present or future labor which you have traded in exchange for the computer. Who gave the computer to them? Well. They obtain the parts to build the computer through voluntary transactions with their previous owner. That argument works really good until you take it to the point of land. The land is where all natural resources originate. These natural resources are responsible for every single non-living thing in existence. Even the living things can be considered a natural resource. Who owns the property and why? That's easy. The person holding the deed.

This is where it gets tricky. When did the first transaction of real property occur? Who was the first entity to own the land and what was their justification of ownership? It seems like the concept of property rights had to be violated in order to begin the tradition of property rights.

This is where our discussion begins.

Any thoughts?

I found a decent article on property rights here: Property Rights: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

"A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism."

Most societies occupy land that they at one point conquered and took from some previous civilization. For example, England has been invaded by the Celts, Romans, northern Germans (Angles/Saxons/Jutes), Vikings, and Normans. Each invading society divided up the conquered lands and established property rights to that land.

So your point is well taken. Most land in which people currently have property rights was formerly the property of a member of some previous civilization.
 
No, not all laws will make economic sense. But you will find that boiling babies down for soap does not usually make economic sense, if you analyse it.

I wouldn't know, but if it did a law allowing it would be a good law according to your argument.

That's because your reasoning is incoherent. You began by arguing that property rights are inherent in nature and then switched over to economics.
 
I am sorry to say that that twist of mind's meaning eludes me.

WWII. It started in 1939, but you didn't show up until 1941. That bit of cowardice was crucial to your emergence as the sole superpower. As far as how you got into the running in the first place, well, that's a longer story, including the convenient failure of your "right rights" to extend to natives and slaves. Or maybe you're right, maybe it was the minor constitutional differences.
 
WWII. It started in 1939, but you didn't show up until 1941. That bit of cowardice was crucial to your emergence as the sole superpower. As far as how you got into the running in the first place, well, that's a longer story, including the convenient failure of your "right rights" to extend to natives and slaves. Or maybe you're right, maybe it was the minor constitutional differences.

It always takes many factors to make a great power.
 
Back
Top Bottom